↑ Up

E---3.5.1.UNS-CRf.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : E---3.5.1
% Problem  : SET093-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM

% Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 02:13:32 PM UTC 2026

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.56s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : Refutation
%            Derivation depth      :    3
%            Number of leaves      :    4
% Syntax   : Number of clauses     :   11 (  11 unt;   0 nHn;   7 RR)
%            Number of literals    :   11 (   5 equ;   3 neg)
%            Maximal clause size   :    1 (   1 avg)
%            Maximal term depth    :    3 (   1 avg)
%            Number of predicates  :    3 (   1 usr;   1 prp; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of functors    :    5 (   5 usr;   2 con; 0-2 aty)
%            Number of variables   :    6 (   4 sgn)

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_1,negated_conjecture,
    singleton(member_of(x)) = x,
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_1) ).

cnf(singleton_set,axiom,
    unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',singleton_set) ).

cnf(prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_2,negated_conjecture,
    ~ member(x,universal_class),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_2) ).

cnf(unordered_pairs_in_universal,axiom,
    member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
    file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',unordered_pairs_in_universal) ).

cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
    singleton(member_of(x)) = x,
    prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_1 ).

cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
    unordered_pair(X1,X1) = singleton(X1),
    singleton_set ).

cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
    ~ member(x,universal_class),
    inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_2_to_singletons_are_sets_2]) ).

cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
    member(unordered_pair(X1,X2),universal_class),
    unordered_pairs_in_universal ).

cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
    unordered_pair(member_of(x),member_of(x)) = x,
    inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).

cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
    ~ member(x,universal_class),
    c_0_6 ).

cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
    $false,
    inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),
    [proof] ).

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05  % Problem  : SET093-6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07  % Command  : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42  % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.42  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.42  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.42  % Memory   : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.42  % OS       : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.43  % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.43  % WCLimit  : 300
% 0.15/0.43  % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:51:42 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.43  % CPUTime  : 
% 0.15/0.43  Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.51  Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.51  Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.26/0.56  % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 59237 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.26/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.56  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.56  % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.56  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting new_bool_3 with 311s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting new_bool_1 with 308s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting sh5l with 304s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % SubtermCWHack with pid 59241 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.56  % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56  % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.56  % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.56  % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.56  % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.56  % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56  % Preprocessing time       : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.56  
% 0.26/0.56  % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.56  % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.56  % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.56  % Parsed axioms                        : 93
% 0.26/0.56  % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE    : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Initial clauses                      : 93
% 0.26/0.56  % Removed in clause preprocessing      : 15
% 0.26/0.56  % Initial clauses in saturation        : 78
% 0.26/0.56  % Processed clauses                    : 21
% 0.26/0.56  % ...of these trivial                  : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % ...subsumed                          : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % ...remaining for further processing  : 21
% 0.26/0.56  % Other redundant clauses eliminated   : 2
% 0.26/0.56  % Clauses deleted for lack of memory   : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Backward-subsumed                    : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Backward-rewritten                   : 1
% 0.26/0.56  % Generated clauses                    : 5
% 0.26/0.56  % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.26/0.56  % ...aggressively subsumed             : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Contextual simplify-reflections      : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Paramodulations                      : 3
% 0.26/0.56  % Factorizations                       : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % NegExts                              : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Equation resolutions                 : 2
% 0.26/0.56  % Disequality decompositions           : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Total rewrite steps                  : 2
% 0.26/0.56  % ...of those cached                   : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Propositional unsat checks           : 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional check models        : 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional clauses             : 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional unsat core size     : 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional preprocessing time  : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional encoding time       : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  %    Propositional solver time         : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  %    Success case prop preproc time    : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  %    Success case prop encoding time   : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  %    Success case prop solver time     : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56  % Current number of processed clauses  : 18
% 0.26/0.56  %    Positive orientable unit clauses  : 10
% 0.26/0.56  %    Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.56  %    Negative unit clauses             : 1
% 0.26/0.56  %    Non-unit-clauses                  : 7
% 0.26/0.56  % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 60
% 0.26/0.56  % ...number of literals in the above   : 141
% 0.26/0.56  % Current number of archived formulas  : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Current number of archived clauses   : 16
% 0.26/0.56  % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 15
% 0.26/0.56  % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13
% 0.26/0.56  % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions  : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.26/0.56  % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound    : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % BW rewrite match attempts            : 3
% 0.26/0.56  % BW rewrite match successes           : 1
% 0.26/0.56  % Condensation attempts                : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Condensation successes               : 0
% 0.26/0.56  % Termbank termtop insertions          : 3833
% 0.26/0.56  % Search garbage collected termcells   : 156
% 0.26/0.56  
% 0.26/0.56  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.56  % User time                : 0.007 s
% 0.26/0.56  % System time              : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.56  % Total time               : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.56  % Maximum resident set size: 3720 pages
% 0.26/0.56  
% 0.26/0.56  % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.56  % User time                : 0.028 s
% 0.26/0.56  % System time              : 0.019 s
% 0.26/0.56  % Total time               : 0.047 s
% 0.26/0.56  % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.56  % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------